Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36326)	3/24/2004 12:54:19 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793955

Right Wing News Blog - A Tale Of Two Victims -- One American And One British I thought it might be instructive to compare how we in America treat people who protect their homes compared to how the Brits protect burglars who rob people's homes. Here's story #1 from "happy burglar land," also known as Britain... "A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed for eight years today. Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun. When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times. Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and died in hospital. Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment." Yes, you're reading that right, a man defending himself & his home with a sword from 4 burglars armed with a gun was sent to jail. As hard as that is to believe, it's really not a parody. I promise. On the other hand, here's how we handled a similar situation in America... "Springfield police said a woman who shot and killed an intruder will not face any charges. However, they said the dead man's accomplice will be charged with his death. The shooting happened around 3 a.m. Sunday morning inside a home in the 300 block of Chestnut Avenue. Police believe James Tanksley, 20, (pictured, left) and Matthew Marino, 21, broke into the woman's house and attempted to burglarize it. Marino was shot and killed by the homeowner during the breakin. ...Investigators said Tanksley was charged in connection with the death because the shooting occurred during the commission of a felony." Isn't that a better solution? The real victim, the homeowner, goes free while one criminal dies and the other crook takes the rap for his partner's death. It works for me. Too bad it doesn't work that way in Britain where Carl Lindsay, an innocent victim, is going to jail for defending his life & home from a group of thugs. The Brits should be praising Lindsay, not sending to the slammer...

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36326)	3/24/2004 3:58:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793955

Krugman had a "Dowd" moment and misused a quote to lie about the Bush Admin. It was so bad that the "Times" printed this letter. A Briefing by the Former Press Secretary By ARI FLEISCHER To the Editor: In "Lifting the Shroud" (column, March 23), Paul Krugman alleges that at my White House press briefing on Sept. 26, 2001, I "ominously warned" Americans to "watch what they say, watch what they do." He accuses me of telling citizens "to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions." At that briefing two weeks after Sept. 11, I was asked about a racist comment made by a Republican congressman from Louisiana who said that if he saw a Sikh-American with a towel wrapped around his head, he would tell the Sikh to get out of his state. I said, "It's important for all Americans to remember the traditions of our country that make us so strong and so free, our tolerance and openness and acceptance." The president, I said, was disturbed by Representative John Cooksey's remarks. Moments later, I was asked about Bill Maher's statement that the members of our armed forces who fire missiles are cowards while terrorists who crashed planes into buildings are not cowards. I answered: "It's a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate. And that's why — there was an earlier question about has the president said anything to people in his own party — they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." My remarks urged tolerance and openness and were addressed to those who made statements and threatened actions against Muslims or Sikhs in America. ARI FLEISCHER Washington, March 23, 2004 The writer was White House press secretary from 2001 to 2003.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36326)	3/24/2004 4:06:02 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793955

Wasting No Tears on Killer By Richard Z. Chesnoff New York Daily News March 23, 2004 Web site: nydailynews.com I'm not shedding any tears for Sheik Ahmed Yassin. The Hamas leader, whom I had the dubious pleasure of interviewing twice, was one of the most ruthless and unyielding of all Palestinian terrorists. The bushy-bearded sheik hid behind the label of "spiritual leader" but he was a cold-blooded killer. He was as much a man of true religion as Yasser Arafat is a man of peace. Critics say Israel's decision to hit Yassin was a strategic error - it was bad timing and will provoke more violence. I disagree. There is no good time for such a strike, and terrorists need no excuse to kill the innocent. It was Yassin who sanctioned or personally ordered almost every one of the major terrorist raids in Israel in recent years. Nearly 1,000 Israeli men, women and children died on buses, in cafes, in synagogues or in their own homes. It was Yassin who taught an entire generation of young Palestinians to hate, inspiring teenagers to abandon their families and become human bombs. It was Yassin who gave the stamp of approval to using female suicide bombers in violation of his religion's tenets. I remember my first interview with him. It was winter 1988, during the initial intifadeh. With the help of an Arab journalist, I had tracked down his secret home in one of the countless alleys and warrens of Gaza. It was a cold, wet day, and the quadriplegic sheik, surrounded by a handful of his faithful, was huddled in his metal bed, all but buried beneath an enormous pile of blankets and comforters. Only his head stuck out. Maybe that's why his speech was so particularly fiery that day and the message so chilling. I remember asking him what Hamas' conditions were for peace and whether Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza would be the first step toward a settlement. At first, I heard what was almost a giggle. Then his squeaky voice grew sharper and louder: "Make no mistake, there will be no peace as long as there is a Zionist-Jewish state. Our holy goal is to liberate all of Palestine, and if the Jews do not go, they will die. All of Palestine is Islamic land - every inch." There it was - Yassin's spiritual philosophy in a nutshell. It was the same the next time we met: No peace with Israel. That position never changed. It is still the core of Hamas policy, as well as of other terror groups like Islamic Jihad. They will never rest until Israel is destroyed. That is why I believe that while moderate Palestinian leaders like Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia may be shedding public tears for Yassin, they should privately rejoice. Hamas and the other terror gangs represent the greatest challenge to their authority and should have been arrested months ago. With the evil sheik dead, the Palestinian Authority has an opportunity to consolidate its power and crack down on terrorism. It also may be the moment for reasonable Palestinian political leaders to find a way to rid themselves of that other great hindrance to peace: Yasser Arafat. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies defenddemocracy.org

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36326)	3/24/2004 11:34:15 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Belmont Club - The Hand of Hamas Now that Hamas has sworn to punish Americans for the IDF operation against their spiritual leader, Shiek Yassin, how might they do it? Structurally, Hamas is pretty much a local devil whose principal strength is concentrated in Gaza and the West Bank. The United States has warned its citizens away from Gaza and the West Bank, so targets there are strictly limited. Since Hamas does not have much of an international reach and there is an urgent necessity to 'teach America a lesson', the actual act of vengeance has probably been farmed out to a better positioned affiliate group, under some reciprocal arrangement, to strike in Hamas' name. That explains why the direct warnings have emanated from an Al Qaeda affiliate called Abu Hafs al-Masri, the same outfit that claimed the Madrid bombings and which Dan Darling at Regnum Crucis thinks is actually an Islamic PR group based in London. Their dire warning reads: "We tell Palestinians that Sheikh Yassin's blood was not spilt in vain and call on all legions of Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades to avenge him by attacking the tyrant of the age, America, and its allies." Notice how they didn't say, 'we Palestinians'. But unless there is an existing operation ready to be diverted, the practical difficulties of whipping one up at short notice may prove difficult. One possibility would be for another group like Hezbollah, which is known to have connections in the US underworld, to mount an attack on its behalf. Something. Anything. That would ironically suit Sharon's book better than Yassin's. It would directly couple Hamas and Fatah to Al Qaeda and by transitivity connect them with the band that gave us September 11. By goading Hamas beyond tolerance, Israel will have succeeded in coupling the Arab-Israeli conflict directly to the Global War on Terror. The repercussions of a Hamas-sponsored attack on America will be felt by its fund-raising charities in Europe, such as the Holy Land Foundation in Germany, the Al Aqsa Foundation in Belgium and Holland and the Comite de Bienfaisance et Solidarite avec la Palestine in France. Sharon may be aiming for a three pointer plus a foul throw. The Times of India, quoting a Washington Post article suggests that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon is attempting to disengage, not only from Gaza but from the decade old "Peace Process". Sharon has been engaged in intensive secret bargaining with the Bush administration in this regard and he intends to scrap the decade-long peace process in favour of a solution according to which Israel would retreat behind a fortified border of its own choosing, the Washington Post said. The proposed "long-term interim" solution would involve an evacuation of Israelis from most or all of the Gaza Strip. ... The assassination, the Post said, was part of Sharon 's attempt to radically reshape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - "an initiative that is looking as reckless as it is bold." "If (George W) Bush agrees to reshape the Israeli-Palestinian landscape with such a partner," the paper warned, "he can expect that other surprises will follow." According to this analysis, the Hellfire missiles were unleashed only incidentally at Yassin. Its real target was Oslo. The Belmont Club has suggested that Sharon has deliberately escalated the conflict in order to cut the Gordian knot and escape from the cycle of hudna/attack that has hamstrung Israeli response these last ten years. Flash! 12:00 Zulu For possibly for the reasons described above Hamas leader Rantisi has backed off from earlier calls to strike at America. Fox News is reporting that "Hamas has no plans to attack American targets, the group's new leader in Gaza said Wednesday." It is a valiant and sagacious attempt by the new Hamas leader to maintain the firewall between the war on Israel and the war on America. But he is burdened with two nearly insurmountable difficulties. The first is the split command structure of Hamas. In an arrangement oddly reminescent of the dual kings of Sparta, the Hamas leadership is divided between the resident in Gaza, who is Rantisi, and a worldwide Hamas leader, who is Mashaal headquartered in Syria. Rantisi's first challenge will be to make his prohibition on attacking America stick. The second and harder problem for Hamas is that Sharon has embarked on a program of headhunting their leadership. Not only will it be increasingly difficult to forbear in the face of such attacks, it may be even harder to survive them. For the first time in nearly a decade, Hamas seems truly afraid of Israel, and is backpedaling in an astonishing manner in a pathetic effort to retain the last threadbare remnants of their triumphant Oslo strategy. For America the new developments create both opportunities and set of new problems. Does America want to link the Arab-Israeli conflict to the Global War on Terror with all that implies? If America is truly committed to a two-state solution in the Holy Land, how can it best exploit the developing political rout of terrorist forces? Perhaps that is what the delegation President Bush is sending to Israel will try to find out.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36326)	3/24/2004 1:09:30 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793955

I guess Raines won't be looking for a reference. :>) Editor and Publisher - Preview of Howell Raines 'Atlantic Monthly' Article Fred Conrad/The New York Times Howell Raines By Greg Mitchell Published: March 24, 2004 11:36 AM EST, Updated at 12:45 PM NEW YORK In a 20,000-word article titled "My Times" in the May issue of The Atlantic Monthly, released in preview form today, former New York Times executive editor Howell Raines writes that the "biggest surprise" in the immediate fallout from the Jayson Blair scandal "was Arthur Sulzberger," the newspaper's publisher. "I had not realized how rattled he was, and frankly I don't think I worked hard enough to stiffen his spine for the survival battle we could have won," Raines writes. Raines also reveals that, contrary to his statement at the tumultuous May 14, 2003, meeting of Times (Click for QuikCap) staffers that suggested he had given Blair a break based on racial guilt, the real reason was he had learned that Blair had gone to the paper's Employee Assistance Program to request treatment for alcohol and drug abuse. As a manager in Washington and New York, Raines had dealt with two "brilliant" writers who went on leave for treatment of alcoholism and both had come back to do Pulitzer-level work. "I was relying on my experience with the previous two cases when Jayson Blair returned to work ... I passed Jayson's desk often after his return, and I saw in him a level of vitality and social engagement that I took to be evidence of recovery," Raines writes. "These positive signs, I thought, warranted giving him a spot on the team covering the D.C. sniper story." In another disclosure, Raines observes that on the Sunday morning in May 2003 when the paper published a mammoth report on Blair's misdeeds, he was fishing with writer John McPhee on the Delaware River. "I read the story in sections as the day unfolded, and I knew at that point that I was unlikely to survive," he writes. "The article did not pursue the one area of reporting that might have worked in my favor -- how and why critical information about Jayson never reached me." Raines also admits: "In hindsight I'm a little surprised that I weathered more than eight years as editorial-page editor without being canned." He also discloses that Times columnist William Safire had urged him not to hold the disastrous May 14, 2003, meeting with Times staffers. Discussing how the paper is advancing since his departure, Raines declares, "the signs are mixed." But he charges that the Siegal Committee report of July 2003 on the Blair affair and ethics at the newspaper "shows an institution in denial." It's "a hymn to the old status quo, drafted by the very people who most strongly resisted the idea of a more vigorous and inclusive way of producing the paper." Most of the lengthy piece, however, covers Raines' career at the Times before the Blair scandal broke. Raines also reveals: * that the Blair scandal "destroyed the relationship between me and one of my mentors, Arthur Gelb." In a phone call, an "unhinged" Gelb denounced Raines for authorizing that massive front-page Blair correction that appeared in May. Raines also says that Gelb "was famous for insincere praises of Times staff members..." While Raines admits that a more modest report on Blair's misdeeds would have "better served my personal interests," he felt that "full disclosure," not "damage control" was best. He still felt that the paper's report on its Wen Ho Lee efforts had been insufficient. * that he takes "full responsibility for the failure to catch Jayson Blair. I had been in the job for twenty months, and I should have somehow found the time to ascertain whether our ramshackle personnel system was up to the task." * one of his closest friends at the paper, Michael Oreskes, told him during the crisis that he was an odd manager -- "a control freak who doesn't like details." * "Nowadays I think of Jayson Blair as an accident that ended my newspaper career in the same unpredictable way that a heart attack or a plane crash might have." Cullen Murphy, editor of The Atlantic Monthly, said Raines had been contracted to write not only about his disgraceful exit from the Times, but also about other aspects of his tenure and the paper's future. "He wanted to write a serious piece about that past and future of The New York Times that would touch on some of the difficult events of the recent past, but would also look at larger issues," Murphy told E&P Wednesday. "That sounded intriguing." Murphy would not reveal what fee Raines received, but said the piece required no more editing than usual. "Editing of a piece is hard to talk about," he said. "There wasn't anything unusual." The 20,000-word article is in the May issue, which will reach subscribers beginning next week, Murphy said, and be available on newsstands by April 5. Further reports on the excerpt to follow.